Association of knee and hip osteoarthritis with the risk of falls and fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Studies evaluating the association of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) with falls and fractures have inconsistent findings. We aimed to investigate associations of symptomatic and radiographic knee and hip OA with risk of falls, recurrent falls, and fractures. Methods We conducted an electronic search of databases from inception to February 2023. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool in eligible studies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Results Of 17 studies included (n = 862849), 2 had a high risk of bias. Among studies that evaluated falls or fractures as outcomes, 7/8 (87.5%) and 5/11 (45.5%) were self-reported, respectively. Both symptomatic knee and hip OA were associated with increased risk of recurrent falls (knee: OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.18; hip: OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.75) but not falls or fractures. Radiographic knee OA increased risk of falls (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.59) and did not significantly increase risk of recurrent falls (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.97) or fractures (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52). Radiographic hip OA decreased the risk of recurrent falls (OR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96) but had no statistically significant association with fractures (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71). Conclusion Symptomatic knee and hip OA were both associated with an increased risk of recurrent falls, and radiographic knee OA was associated with an increased risk of falls. No statistically significant associations of radiographic and symptomatic knee or hip OA with fractures were found.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".